Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 9-1805 (2026)

Standards for determining whether child witness’ testimony may be presented by alternative method. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Standards for determining whether child witness’ testimony may be presented by alternative method. 

(1) In a criminal proceeding, the presiding officer may order the presentation of the testimony of a child witness by an alternative method only in the following situations:

(a)  A child witness’ testimony may be taken otherwise than in an open forum in the presence and full view of the finder of fact if the presiding officer finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child would suffer serious emotional trauma that would substantially impair the child’s ability to communicate with the finder of fact if required to testify in the open forum.
(b)  A child witness’ testimony may be taken other than in a face-to-face confrontation between the child and a defendant if the presiding officer finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child would suffer serious emotional trauma that would substantially impair the child’s ability to communicate with the finder of fact if required to be confronted face-to-face by the defendant.
(2)  In a noncriminal proceeding, the presiding officer may order the presentation of the testimony of a child witness by an alternative method if the presiding officer finds by a preponderance of the evidence that presenting the testimony of the child by an alternative method is necessary to serve the best interests of the child or enable the child to communicate with the finder of fact. In making this finding, the presiding officer shall consider:
(a)  The nature of the proceeding;
(b)  The age and maturity of the child;
(c)  The relationship of the child to the parties in the proceeding;
(d)  The nature and degree of emotional trauma that the child may suffer in testifying; and
(e)  Any other relevant factor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2016–2020 · leading case: State v. Mark Bergquist, 211 A.3d 946 (Vt. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Mark Bergquist, 211 A.3d 946 (Vt. 2019). “§ 54 -86g(a) ; Idaho Code Ann. § 9-1805 (1); Kan. Stat. Ann.”
State v. Marcelino B. Baeza, 383 P.3d 1208 (Idaho 2016). · cites it 4× “The State argued that under Idaho Code sections 9-1805 and 9-1806, J.C. should be allowed to testify through alternative methods.”
State v. Farrell-Quigle, 477 P.3d 208 (Idaho 2020). · cites it 6× “” Where we have already found that the procedure utilized here was inherently prejudicial because it created an appearance of guilt, there is no need for us to determine whether the testimony given while a shielding screen was present was reliable.”
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla ex rel. Cnty. of Maricopa, 371 P.3d 642 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “§ 54-86g(a); Idaho Code Ann. § 9-1805 (l)(a)-(b) (West); Kan.”
State v. Hon. padilla/simcox (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “§ 54 -86g(a); Idaho Code Ann. § 9-1805 (1)(a)-(b) (West); Kan.”
— Idaho Code § 9-1805(1) — 1 case
State v. Farrell-Quigle, 477 P.3d 208 (Idaho 2020). “” Where we have already found that the procedure utilized here was inherently prejudicial because it created an appearance of guilt, there is no need for us to determine whether the testimony given while a shielding screen was present was reliable.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.